Fearmongering is not cool either.

There is nothing more that can happen then is already happening now.

More people will have more equal rights, which is always good.

It is just too bad people have to fight for equal rights that should be given automatically. It is a waste of valuable time in people's lives.

It would seem that people who have practiced incest far more outnumber the practicing homosexuals.



http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Incest

Pevalence is difficult to generalize, but research has estimated 10-15% of the general population as having at least one incest experience, with less than 2% involving intercourse or attempted intercourse.[5] Among women, research by Russell (1986) and Wyatt (1985) has yielded estimates as high as twenty percent.[4]


With those facts know we can assume if gay marriage was thrown out because of morality issues you would have nothing to prevent people from marrying family members.You can speak about birth defects but from what I have read there is around a 2-3% chance or birth defects for incest couples which is also about the same percentage for normal couples.If sure women over 40 who wish to become pregnant are for more likely to experience birth defects then Incest couples who have children.


I am not defending Incest in any way shape or form and I am strongly against it.But if I was forced to make a vote on marriage for Incest couples or marriage for gay couples I would pick Incest because there is less problems associating with it.


Someone said earlier that women do anal sex also.Women doing anal sex isn't any more safer then two men doing it or is it less disgusting.Women doing anal are rolling the dice with a increase in STD's the same way men are with...


Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis25

Considering that this isn't accurate.....

There is more of a possibility of bacterial infection with anal sex no matter who is doing it.

And Hiv can be spread more easily with anal sex and vaginal sex because of the possibility of the skin getting a lesion in it during sex. If a small scratch happens in the skin HIV can spread easier.

Also men deposit into whoever they have sex with so their gay partners or women are at a risk because of the depositing of fluids.

Ejaculate.

Mmm Mmm good.

Bend over...








































































































































I'm cummin' in.

Priveleges or rights - whatever you wish to call them, it does not matter to the argument that I am putting forth. They are all afforded. They are not equally afforded. My argument is against the discrimination that underwrites such inequality. The gay/lesbian community cannot obtain the benefits that accompany being legally married, because they are not being afforded to them based upon gender discrimination in the laws, and sexual preference discrimination in public. That is denying them the benefits that go along with privelege of being married based upon gender discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination.



Priveleges then. What's it matter? They're all afforded to straights, not all to gays - and it is all discrimination.



This is rubbish. I could write a Masters' thesis on 4 alone which would show how 5 clearly contradicts both, the principles of freedom and morality. Not to mention the fact that 5 goes against American ideology to begin with, as clearly shown by the following...

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"



This makes no sense. Here are the facts of the matter...

1. It is neither the gay nor the straight lifestyle that is causing the number of AIDS cases to rise.
2. It is unsafe sexual practices.
3. It is much less likely for a woman to contract AIDS from another woman.
4. The largest increase is among black heterosexual women.

So again, it seems your reasoning here is flawed from being based upon falsehood. I am curious though - based upon the facts, would you say that we should discriminate against black heterosexual women because of the fact that the most rapid increase in AIDS cases is among them? I mean, that was your reasoning.



Right there is the aforementioned underlying irrational fear regarding 'adding more gays'. I suspected that it would not take very long before it began creeping out from under all of this. It is irrational. I have no idea how you have arrived at the notion that stopping discrimination is somehow equivalent to "adding more homosexuals". People are not going to suddenly decide to become gay because we discontinue discrimination. Neither will such a thing happen if we rightfully extend the gay/lesbian community the privelege and benefits that go along with being legally married.

People do not decide to be gay, but WHAT IF THEY COULD? Again, it is not by virtue of being gay, that one contracts std's, that one is promiscuous, or any of the other 'dangerous' reasons why we should not accept/promote gay lifestyle that you've put forth thus far.



All gays do not committ suicide. All gays do not have an STD. All gays do not have AIDS. All gays do not use illegal drugs. All gays are not promiscuous. All gays are not the same except for the fact that they are gay.

The claim about being murdered is rather interesting, though. I would be willing to bet that most of the gays who are murdered, are murdered by straight people. If that is the case, then why is the idea that gays are more prone to be murdered put forth to be a strike against gays?



Nothing in my argument supports this contrived falsehood. Like some others, it seems you think that you're somehow privy to my mental activities. Please, base the responses to me based upon what I do write - not what you think that I think. It's a part of what constitutes being reasonable. I'm confident that we can all agree here.



Again, let's use the example provided here that justifies accepting the dangers inherent in McDonalds in order to show that for the same reasons, we should accept the inherent dangers in having anal sex during homosexual discourse. People can be gay, live a gay lifestyle with a single lifelong partner, never committ a crime, never get a ticket, have anal sex every day, never contract an STD, and still live to be 80.

You brought up the health 'danger', claiming that because those dangers exist we are justified in discrimination against gay lifestyle. Further saying that we should not promote gay lifestyle BECAUSE of those 'dangers'. The example of McDonalds clearly shows the fault in that kind of thinking by using the same 'reasoning'. If our establishing known danger constitutes justifying the decision to not promote the dangerous thing, then that also rightfully applies to much more than a gay lifestyle, including but not limited to, the well-known dangers of fast food and alchohol consumption.

If this kind of thinking seems rediculous, that's because IT IS. On a more obvious note, by your standards here the known deadly side-effects of most new medicines would justify not promoting them.



Gay sex does not have any more inherent danger to contract AIDS than straight sex. The danger is unprotected sex. You have no ground here Thomas. The argument of dangerous std's like AIDS works both ways... pardon the pun.



This is an unjustifiable attempt to claim that the gay community somehow causes more quantifiable harm to society than the straight community does. If the gay/lesbian community is costing the American taxpayer more money than the straight community - then show it. If the gay/lesbian community is 'doing harmful things to society' than the straight community - then show it.



I'd like to see an unbiased resource which shows exactly how many people in the US with AIDS are gay, and how many are straight. I'm just curious.



Imagination is a curiously interesting thing.



Hope away. It'll never happen. This is a product of the imagination. Imagining yourself to be in another set of circumstances does not improve the position you hold and are arguing for in the actual ones.

Unprotected anal sex carries more risk than unprotected vaginal sex which carries more risk than unprotected oral sex. ....


to think otherwise is to be a bit naive

all behaviors above are risky , but some are DEFINITELY riskier than others

Well then Miles, it seems to me what we need it better education - begining in high-school when so many kids are beginning to experiement with sex.

That means we need to teach the dangers of homosexual sex and how to avoid them - JUST LIKE WE DO FOR HETEROSEXUALS, and I'm talking about abstinance because we all know that is not going to happen. So we NEED to prepare our young poeple with the information they need to be as safe as possible. RIGHT?

Ignoring the issues don't make them go away. Denying marriage to gays doesn't make them stop having sex.

The challenge that Creative issued to those who insist that gays are not the only ones who cannot marry, was to find out WHY those who cannot legally marry in any state are barred from doing so and then we can determine if any of those reasons also apply to gays and lesbians.

If you are so concerned about those other issues and that they too may come up for reconsideration in some future date, then I would suggest you find out why those prohibitions exit in the first place.

And NO, it is not because society is disgusted by the idea - sorry but just because that's the reason people don't like the idea of gay marriage, doesn't mean that's the reason others are prohibitied from being married.

Until you can find something about those other prohibitions (minors, mentally incompetant, incest, & polygomy)that also extend to gays and lesbians then there is nothing similar between them all.

I could save you a lot of time and tell you, some of the best legal minds in the country have been arguing this issue (in Supreme Courts) for well over a year (Prop 8) and not one of the issues stated above have EVER come up. The only one that has even been mentioned had to do with interracial.

That should tell you that there are sufficient 'reasonings' for the other prohibitions AND that reasoning does NOT apply to gays and lesbians.

But don't take my word for it - if you are indeed concerned and if your bias allows you to do the research, you will never bring up those unrelated arguments again. Because I and everyone else who reads this thread will know that you are not interested in equality but only in supporting the bias of your own unsubstantiated opinions.

I thought since sex education came into the school system that teenage sexual tendencies has went up not down.

Sex is a on the job experience that should be only between 2 people forever.

If we made adultry a crime our sexual crimes would go down i believe at least and marraiges whoever it may be 2 would be more than a breakup dating sence of the word. sex and dating are the norm.

we say one thing in this country and do another. like I said its a ramped tutering of the masse to control them. Devide and conquer and we become slaves.. more to it than sex though. But thats another topic.. Blessings Red...Miles

I think you have to explain that one better? Are you saying, in the case of incest, that it would be too confusing to know how to relate to your relatives? OR is the confustion in how your ARE related to your relatives? Is that why you think it's prohibited?

And exactly how do you relate that to two fathers - two mothers - or adoption cases?

Actually, Miles - there is no absolute certainty as to how AIDS began, HOWEVER, if you follow it to it earliest appearance in Africa, you will notice entire HETEROSEXUAL villages completely wiped out by AIDS. How it got spread from there we cannot be certain.

However, the fact remains that HIV/AIDS invades all sectors of the United States and in the world. Continueing to judge only one group of people who have the syndrome (today)while holding all others who have the syndrome as innocents is not logical. It is a disease and if exposed to it, regardless of how that exposure came about, anyone can get it.

I just wish one of 'em would justify their claim.

It's only reasonable. Di makes a good point here as well. If one researches the actual reasons that some of these red herring examples are denied the privelege of marriage, it becomes obvious that those reasons do no apply to gay marriage.

I've already offered the ones that I am aware of regarding mentally challenged people.

Once upon a time the Catholic Church said it was a sin for a married couple to have sex any way other than missionary style. It was a MAJOR sin to do so and a woman was considered a whore if her husband wanted an annulment based on her "unnatural" desires to have sex any other way.

Look it up - it's true.

So now because you don't like the way SOME poeple like to have sex, you want to stop all of them from entering your thoughts in that way.

Well, I have news for you - not ALL gay guys have anal sex - and not all heterosexuals only do it missionary style. Some married (heterosexual) couples are big time into S&M - it's actually quite interesting, well at least from the perspective of having some interesting role playing in the bedroom (or anywhere in the house).

Perhaps all of that is offensive to you as well, but you don't want to prevent heterosexuals who enjoy those things from being married - so why only homosexuals?

Also, you are misplacing the value - the value is on equality and the fact that our Constitution is about equality NOT ABOUT YOU encouraging or supporting someone elses sexual passions, but about YOU encouraging or supporting the ideal of equality.

"It's a gay disease" was/is a caustic and bigoted meme that perpetuates irrational fear and hatred.

Then what is similar between incenstuous marriage and homosexual marriage - why do you keep relating them to each other?

You all really do not get what I have always said.. its a devide and conquer subject and we are the butt end of it..haha.. sorry could not resist

If you look at everything as a hole in our society we are led just where they want us.. its way more than homosexual thing.. just llok around at these boards and its an attack on all of us not in real power.. just look outside the box.. Shalom..Miles

But there is no major movement underway for incestuous marriage – we are discussing same-sex marriage.



If the issue of incestuous marriage becomes as looming as SS marriage, then your question might be considered. But it has nothing to do with the equality that marriage affords SS couples today.



If you think that’s the only reason such marriages are disallowed, then perhaps you should research it a little more – begin with a psychological view. There have been some great advances in that field in the last hundred years – psychology as a biology is only one of them.




That is a fear for another day – today we are dealing with allowing same sex couples to marry.

Otherwise, I would suggest that every fast food restaurant be banned from the U.S. and that only fresh, frozen, or dried, organic whole foods would be sold in every store (pasteurized when necessary).

But that has nothing to do with the issue at hand and neither does your future fear.

You cannot base a question of one groups equality on a future hypothetical ‘what if’ question to something unrelated to the issue at hand.

The only relationship you have been able to show between incest and same sex marriage is that they are both currently disallowed by most states. Have you anything else?

Homosexual couple cannot produce children between them, and unless you believe that there is some DNA component inherant to homosexuals, then there is little risk of either (as seed or sperm) in adding more homosexuals to the population.

I would also like to note that genetic determinants are no longer the main concern surrounding close insectuous encounters. So this point is irrelevant.

As far as homosexual relationships being more unhealthy - I would ask how would that affect you.